行动中的 GEP-NETs 辐射组学:对应用和质量评估的系统审查

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
{"title":"行动中的 GEP-NETs 辐射组学:对应用和质量评估的系统审查","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s40336-024-00617-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Purpose</h3> <p>To provide a comprehensive overview of the applications and quality of radiomics studies in GEP-NETs.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Methods</h3> <p>Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched until 2023. Studies that extracted qualitative radiomics features of GEP-NETs were included. Radiomics quality score (RQS) was used to assess the quality of studies. Changes in study quality were analyzed by grouping studies into three categories based on the year of publication. Correlation of impact factor (IF), CiteScore, Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) and RQS were tested by spearman correlation analysis.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Results</h3> <p>A total of 64 studies were included, focusing on aggressive behavior prediction in tumors (<em>n</em> = 34), differentiation of GEP-NETs from other lesions (<em>n</em> = 18), and prognosis or treatment response prediction (<em>n</em> = 13). Three RQS criteria met most frequently in studies were discrimination statistics, discussing clinical utility and well-documented image protocol. The three RQS criteria met least frequently were prospective design, multiple imaging time points, open data. As time progressed, the 2022–2023 group achieved significantly higher RQS scores compared to the previous groups. IF and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.29, <em>p</em> = 0.024), CiteScore and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.22, <em>p</em> = 0.085), SJR and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.28, <em>p</em> = 0.028) were all weakly associated.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>Few studies focused on prognosis or treatment response prediction, indicating potential for future research. While overall improvements have been made, the majority of studies still exhibit low quality. Optimizing dataset quality, model assessment, and reporting of the radiomics workflow remains necessary. The three commonly used journal evaluation metrics may not accurately reflect the quality of a radiomics study.</p> </span>","PeriodicalId":48600,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GEP-NETs radiomics in action: a systematical review of applications and quality assessment\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40336-024-00617-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Purpose</h3> <p>To provide a comprehensive overview of the applications and quality of radiomics studies in GEP-NETs.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Methods</h3> <p>Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched until 2023. Studies that extracted qualitative radiomics features of GEP-NETs were included. Radiomics quality score (RQS) was used to assess the quality of studies. Changes in study quality were analyzed by grouping studies into three categories based on the year of publication. Correlation of impact factor (IF), CiteScore, Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) and RQS were tested by spearman correlation analysis.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Results</h3> <p>A total of 64 studies were included, focusing on aggressive behavior prediction in tumors (<em>n</em> = 34), differentiation of GEP-NETs from other lesions (<em>n</em> = 18), and prognosis or treatment response prediction (<em>n</em> = 13). Three RQS criteria met most frequently in studies were discrimination statistics, discussing clinical utility and well-documented image protocol. The three RQS criteria met least frequently were prospective design, multiple imaging time points, open data. As time progressed, the 2022–2023 group achieved significantly higher RQS scores compared to the previous groups. IF and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.29, <em>p</em> = 0.024), CiteScore and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.22, <em>p</em> = 0.085), SJR and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.28, <em>p</em> = 0.028) were all weakly associated.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>Few studies focused on prognosis or treatment response prediction, indicating potential for future research. While overall improvements have been made, the majority of studies still exhibit low quality. Optimizing dataset quality, model assessment, and reporting of the radiomics workflow remains necessary. The three commonly used journal evaluation metrics may not accurately reflect the quality of a radiomics study.</p> </span>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Translational Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Translational Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-024-00617-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-024-00617-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 目的 全面概述 GEP-NET 中放射组学研究的应用和质量。 方法 检索 Embase、Scopus 和 PubMed,直至 2023 年。纳入了提取GEP-NET定性放射组学特征的研究。采用放射组学质量评分(RQS)评估研究质量。根据发表年份将研究分为三类,分析研究质量的变化。影响因子(IF)、CiteScore、科学期刊排名(SJR)和 RQS 的相关性通过 spearman 相关性分析进行检验。 结果 共纳入 64 项研究,主要涉及肿瘤侵袭行为预测(34 项)、GEP-NET 与其他病变的鉴别(18 项)以及预后或治疗反应预测(13 项)。研究中最常符合的三项 RQS 标准是判别统计、临床实用性讨论和有据可查的图像方案。符合最少的三个 RQS 标准是前瞻性设计、多个成像时间点、开放数据。随着时间的推移,2022-2023 组的 RQS 得分明显高于前几组。IF 和 RQS(r = 0.29,p = 0.024)、CiteScore 和 RQS(r = 0.22,p = 0.085)、SJR 和 RQS(r = 0.28,p = 0.028)均呈弱相关。 结论 很少有研究关注预后或治疗反应预测,这表明未来研究具有潜力。虽然总体上有所改进,但大多数研究的质量仍然较低。优化数据集质量、模型评估和放射组学工作流程报告仍有必要。期刊常用的三个评估指标可能无法准确反映放射组学研究的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
GEP-NETs radiomics in action: a systematical review of applications and quality assessment

Abstract

Purpose

To provide a comprehensive overview of the applications and quality of radiomics studies in GEP-NETs.

Methods

Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched until 2023. Studies that extracted qualitative radiomics features of GEP-NETs were included. Radiomics quality score (RQS) was used to assess the quality of studies. Changes in study quality were analyzed by grouping studies into three categories based on the year of publication. Correlation of impact factor (IF), CiteScore, Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) and RQS were tested by spearman correlation analysis.

Results

A total of 64 studies were included, focusing on aggressive behavior prediction in tumors (n = 34), differentiation of GEP-NETs from other lesions (n = 18), and prognosis or treatment response prediction (n = 13). Three RQS criteria met most frequently in studies were discrimination statistics, discussing clinical utility and well-documented image protocol. The three RQS criteria met least frequently were prospective design, multiple imaging time points, open data. As time progressed, the 2022–2023 group achieved significantly higher RQS scores compared to the previous groups. IF and RQS (r = 0.29, p = 0.024), CiteScore and RQS (r = 0.22, p = 0.085), SJR and RQS (r = 0.28, p = 0.028) were all weakly associated.

Conclusion

Few studies focused on prognosis or treatment response prediction, indicating potential for future research. While overall improvements have been made, the majority of studies still exhibit low quality. Optimizing dataset quality, model assessment, and reporting of the radiomics workflow remains necessary. The three commonly used journal evaluation metrics may not accurately reflect the quality of a radiomics study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical and Translational Imaging
Clinical and Translational Imaging Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Imaging is an international journal that publishes timely, up-to-date summaries on clinical practice and translational research and clinical applications of approved and experimental radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Coverage includes such topics as advanced preclinical evidence in the fields of physics, dosimetry, radiation biology and radiopharmacy with relevance to applications in human subjects. The journal benefits a readership of nuclear medicine practitioners and allied professionals involved in molecular imaging and therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信